DCT
1:18-cv-00659
Coding Tech LLC v. Commercial Metals Co
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Coding Technologies, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Commercial Metals Co (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt, LLC
- Case Identification: 1:18-cv-00659, D. Del., 04/30/2018
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation and therefore resides in the judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s use of QR codes to direct mobile device users to its website infringes a patent related to methods and systems for providing mobile services via a code pattern.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using a camera-equipped mobile device to scan a machine-readable code, which then automatically directs the device to associated online content, streamlining the process of linking physical objects to digital information.
- Key Procedural History: The asserted patent is the result of a lengthy prosecution history, claiming continuation status from a series of prior U.S. and PCT applications originating in 2004. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings involving the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-03-07 | U.S. Patent No. 8,540,159 Priority Date |
| 2013-09-24 | U.S. Patent No. 8,540,159 Issue Date |
| 2017-06-15 | Date of alleged QR code scan shown in complaint evidence |
| 2018-04-30 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,540,159 - Method for Providing Mobile Service Using Code-Pattern
- Issued: September 24, 2013
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the inconvenience and difficulty for users in manually typing website URLs from advertisements into a mobile device to access more information (’159 Patent, col. 1:43-50). It also notes the challenge for travelers in obtaining specific local information or calling for services like a taxi when in an unfamiliar area (’159 Patent, col. 1:56-col. 2:4).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where a user employs a mobile terminal with a camera to take a photograph of a "code pattern" (such as a QR code or barcode). The terminal then automatically decodes the pattern to extract information, such as a URL, and uses that information to request and receive content from a server, thereby eliminating the need for manual data entry (’159 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:41-49; FIG. 5).
- Technical Importance: This approach provided a streamlined bridge between physical-world advertising or information displays and corresponding digital content, a foundational concept for mobile marketing and information retrieval as smartphones became prevalent (’159 Patent, col. 1:36-43).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (method), 8 (user terminal), 15 (non-transitory machine-readable medium), and 16 (method).
- Independent Claim 1 (Method):
- obtaining a photographic image of a code pattern by a camera of the user terminal;
- processing, by a processor of the user terminal, the photographic image of the code pattern to extract the code pattern from the photographic image;
- decoding the extracted code pattern by the processor of the user terminal into code information;
- transmitting a content information request message to a server based on the code information; and
- receiving content information from the server in response to the content information request message.
- Independent Claim 8 (User Terminal):
- a camera configured to obtain a photographic image of a code pattern;
- a processor comprising: an image processor configured to process the photographic image of the code pattern to extract the code pattern from the photographic image; and a decoder configured to decode the extracted code pattern into code information; and
- a transceiver configured to (i) transmit a content information request message to a server based on the code information; and (ii) receive content information from the server in response to the content information request message.
- The complaint also asserts dependent claims 2, 3, 9, 10, and reserves the right to assert others (Compl. ¶16).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are methods and systems used by Defendant, allegedly including through internal testing, that involve providing a QR code to link users to Defendant's content (Compl. ¶15, ¶19).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges a process where a user employs a smartphone to scan a QR code provided by the Defendant (Compl. ¶19). The complaint provides a visual example of a QR code that, when scanned, directs the user's smartphone to a URL for a webpage associated with "CMC Cary Engineering" (Compl. ¶19, ¶22). The process is depicted as a four-step "QR-Code -> Scan -> Decode -> Action" sequence, resulting in the user's device displaying Defendant's webpage (Compl. ¶22, ¶24). The complaint provides a diagram illustrating this process flow from scanning to viewing the website (Compl. ¶22, FIG. at p. 8).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 8,540,159 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| obtaining a photographic image of a code pattern by a camera of the user terminal; | A user terminal (smartphone) obtains a photographic image of a QR code using its camera. The complaint provides a screenshot of a smartphone camera viewfinder targeting a QR code (Compl. ¶20, FIG. at p. 6). | ¶20 | col. 2:41-43 |
| processing, by a processor of the user terminal, the photographic image of the code pattern to extract the code pattern from the photographic image; | A smartphone's processor (e.g., an "A10 Fusion chip") processes the photographic image to extract the QR code. | ¶21 | col. 9:10-14 |
| decoding the extracted code pattern by the processor of the user terminal into code information; | The smartphone processor decodes the QR code into "code information," specifically the URL "http://www.cmc.com/en/americas/cmccaryengineering/Pages/aboutus.aspx". The complaint provides a screenshot showing this decoded URL (Compl. ¶22, FIG. at p. 8). | ¶22 | col. 9:16-20 |
| transmitting a content information request message to a server based on the code information; | Based on the decoded URL, the user terminal transmits an HTTP request to Defendant's server to access the webpage. A screenshot shows an "Open URL in Safari" option, which would initiate such a request (Compl. ¶23, FIG. at p. 9). | ¶23 | col. 2:45-48 |
| receiving content information from the server in response to the content information request message. | The user terminal receives and displays the webpage from Defendant's server. A screenshot shows the resulting webpage loaded on the smartphone (Compl. ¶24, FIG. at p. 10). | ¶24 | col. 2:48-49 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Claim 16 recites a method of extracting "characteristic information" from a photographic image, whereas Claim 1 recites extracting a "code pattern." The complaint alleges that processing the QR code satisfies both limitations (Compl. ¶56-57). A potential dispute is whether the term "characteristic information" is synonymous with "code pattern" or if it implies a different type of image analysis (e.g., object recognition), potentially creating a non-infringement argument for Claim 16.
- Technical Questions: The complaint's allegations are consistently qualified with the phrase "at least in internal use and testing" (Compl. ¶19, ¶20, ¶21, etc.). This raises an evidentiary question regarding the scope and commercial nature of the alleged infringement. The court will need to determine whether the accused activity extends beyond internal testing to public, commercial use, which would significantly impact the potential for damages.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "code pattern"
Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the asserted claims, defining the scannable object. Its construction will determine whether the accused QR codes fall within the patent's scope. The complaint presumes that a QR code is a "code pattern" (Compl. ¶19).
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification explicitly lists examples, stating the term includes "a one-dimensional barcode, and a PDF-417 code, a QR code and a data matrix, which are two-dimensional barcodes" (’159 Patent, col. 11:2-5). This language provides strong support for a broad construction that encompasses the accused QR codes.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the numerous specific embodiments (e.g., taxi call service) suggest the term requires more than just a simple URL, but rather a structured data set intended for a specific service platform described in the patent. However, the explicit inclusion of QR codes in the specification would make this a difficult position to sustain.
The Term: "characteristic information" (in Claim 16)
Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because its relationship to "code pattern" is undefined. If it is construed as being different from "code pattern," it could provide Defendant with a non-infringement defense to Claim 16, even if infringement of other claims is found.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that in the context of the patent, a code pattern is a type of characteristic information extracted from an image, making the terms effectively interchangeable for the purposes of the invention.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define the term. A party could argue that "characteristic information" should be given its plain meaning, suggesting features inherent to the image subject (e.g., shape, color, texture for object recognition) rather than data encoded in an artificial pattern like a QR code. This would distinguish it from a "code pattern," which is explicitly about decoding predefined symbols.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement and contributory infringement (Compl. ¶15). The factual basis for inducement may be grounded in Defendant's alleged instruction to "use your Smartphone to scan the QR code" (Compl. ¶19), which directs a third-party user to perform the steps of the patented method.
- Willful Infringement: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has known of the ’159 Patent and that its infringement has been willful (Compl. ¶58). The complaint does not plead specific facts supporting pre-suit knowledge, which is common at the pleading stage.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A key evidentiary question will be one of commercial scope: does the alleged infringement, described as occurring "at least in internal use and testing," represent a widespread, public-facing commercial activity by the Defendant? The answer will be critical for establishing the extent of infringement and the basis for any potential damages.
- A core issue for claim construction will be one of definitional distinction: can the term "characteristic information" in Claim 16 be construed differently from "code pattern" as used in other independent claims? The resolution of this question will determine the breadth of claims Defendant must face and may create divergent infringement outcomes among the asserted claims.